Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HANIF VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan Title: MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And Other Case No.: Civil Petition No. 938 of 1986 Petition No. 1414-8 of 1975 Date of Judgment:1990-01-31 Reported As: 1991 SCMR 1744 Result: Leave granted
Judgment ORDER NASIM HASAN. SHAH, J: --It has, inter alia, been held by the High Court that respondent No. 1 was occupying the disputed premises as tenant, under the petitioner, since 1966 and, therefore, could not claim the transfer thereof. Plea of tenancy has not been raised in the instant petition. Also, learned counsel could not point out anything to substantiate it. I am, therefore, unable to accept the above plea. The learned counsel submits that it was an admitted position that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein namely Abdul Aziz was a tenant of the petitioner. Hence the question of substantiating this plea did not arise. Similarly, the observation of the High Court that the plea of tenancy was raised before the High Court for the first time was misconceived. The case of the petitioner has throughout been that the property in question stood transferred in his favour and that the same was given to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 after the same had vested in him. The plea taken before the High Court was not, therefore, a new plea. Security Rs.5,000. Status quo will be maintained by the respondents who will neither alienate the property in dispute nor change its character, during the pendency of this appeal.
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.